Tim Marman's Loosely Coupled

Browse by Tags

• Copyright
• Innovation
• Privacy
• Rants
• Security
• Trademark

• Would you trust Zamzar with your data?

  Kevin writes about Zamzar , a free web-based service that converts audio, video and documents from one format to another (via Download Squad ). Sounds cool, but would you trust them with your sensitive data? I don't know about you, but I barely trust Google or Microsoft with this information. Should I trust what appears to be a UK-based startup whose company page provides little, if any, information about the company? In their Terms of Service and Privacy Policy , they make allusions to "respect[ing] the intellectual property rights of others" - though the language seems to be more related to a third party's protected work as opposed to any protected work you are personally uploading. The Privacy Policy also discusses, sort of, how the files are stored and accessible. Storage of User Files When users upload files to be converted Zamzar stores those files on its servers until such time as those files have been converted to the new file format. As soon as this has been done Zamzar removes... Posted Nov 03 2006, 08:37 AM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Security, Copyright, Web 2.0, Innovation, Privacy

• Scoble changes his mind about RSS republishing

  Robert Scoble is complaining that someone is repurposing his content . It’s one thing to use it in an online news aggregator like Bloglines and its a whole nother thing to steal my content and put a different name on it and then spam everyone I link to with trackback spam. This is content theft and its not OK. If you are advocating this is OK you simply don’t understand copyright law. Sorry, Robert, but now I'm a bit confused. You once said in March 2005 that "RSS is a republishing system" and that "by publishing RSS as full text you're buying into a system where your words will be republished in a variety of ways." Or, put another way, "put all your content into RSS like me and let the world do with your content what it likes". What you gave, in effect, was an implied license that doesn't discern between commercial and non-commercial use. Three months prior to that, you got upset when Martin wanted his feed removed from Bloglines. I see Tyme and Martin's point. I really do. I know copyright... Posted Aug 28 2006, 12:02 PM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Copyright, Web 2.0

• The problem with regulating what you don't understand

  This interview would be funnier if Senator Stevens wasn't involved in crafting Internet regulation. Stevens does an amazing job (jaw-dropping, really) of explaining how the Internet works and why network neutrality is a bad thing. Choice quotes: But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free. Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? And: They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in... Posted Jul 05 2006, 06:24 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Web 2.0

• The Web 2.0 Trademark Debacle

  There has been a bit of controversy over O'Reilly's "Web 2.0" service mark cease-and-desist letter and their subsequent "we had to" response . I'd say Mike Arrington correctly predicted the lynching , though some are defending O'Reilly . ( Scoble is just upset he's no longer the King of Evil ). Fortunately, the issue has been resolved , but not before the PR damage was done. We're not claiming exclusive use of "Web 2.0" in all contexts. Our service mark applies only to "Web 2.0" when used in the *title* of "live events" such as conferences and tradeshows. Rob Hyndmann wrote exactly what I was thinking , especially the first and last points. First, there’s the effort (without any trace of irony, it appears) to restrict and monopolize the use of the term in connection with events held to educate and evangelize … a set of technologies that are about collaboration, sharing and open access to information. Next, there’s the threat against a non-profit, of all things, innocently trying to do nothing... Posted May 26 2006, 12:23 PM by Tim with | with 3 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Web 2.0, Trademark